fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
Purist Libertarian
Purists are from Mars, Pragmatists are from Venus :Source: by Tim Crowley in July, 2006 THE Libertarian Party Is passing its next PHASE OF its PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE Most ideas and products go through several stages of acceptance. The Libertarian Party (LP) and its platform are transitioning from the Innovator phase to the Early Adopter phase. The Libertarian Party has already gone from the innovator phase to the early adopter phase. The state board meetings,for example, show 'pragmatists' outnumbering "purists". Most local Libertarian candidates are non-purists. The purists cannot run the party at current levels by themselves. Pragmatists are coalition partners, not second class citizens who do not 'see the light'. The LP News' editorial policies are designed to transition the party from the innovator to the early adopter phase. Just take a few back issues of the LP News and see if the take-away message of each article is that of an innovator or an early adopter. The LP.org web site has dropped most of the philosophical and jingoistic material and is more topical and user friendly. It is designed in my view to entice the early adopters to join. The Advocates have also updated their World's Smallest Political Quiz. I used to get a 70/80 on the old version of the Advocates' Quiz. Now I get a 100% on the newer version. There is a time lag before the bylaws, pledges, formal declarations of the LP catch up with this trend. Each component of the LP will proceed at its own pace, but all products, movements and ideas go through the product life cycle. The product life cycle is based upon the biological life cycle that all living organisms follow. PERHAPS THE TERMS PURIST AND PRAGMATIST SHOULD BE REPLACED BY INNOVATOR AND EARLY ADOPTER? The Everett Rogers Diffusion of innovations theory - for any given product category, there are five categories of product adopters: * innovators 2.5% (Purists) ** venturesome, educated, multiple info sources * early adopters 13.5% (Pragmatists) ** social leaders, popular, educated * early majority 34% ** (The LP must reach these people before it will be effective.) ** deliberate, many informal social contacts * late majority 34% **skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status * laggards 16% ** neighbours and friends are main info sources, fear of debt - - - - Diffusion of innovations theory was formalized by Everett Rogers in a 1962 book called Diffusion of Innovations. Rogers stated that adopters of any new innovation or idea could be categorized as * "Purist" innovators (2.5%), * "Pragmatist" early adopters (13.5%), * early majority (34%), * late majority (34%), and * laggards (16%), based on a bell curve. Each adopter's willingness and ability to adopt an innovation would depend on their awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Some characteristics of each category of adopter include: INNOVATORS venturesome, educated, multiple info sources, greater propensity to take risk (analogous to Purists) The party is transitioning from an innovator stage to an early adopter stage. I would venture that various aspects of the party will make this transition at different rates. The national , state and local parties will be at different points on the bell curve of the LP's product life cycle. The zero dues policy will probably hasten the early adoter phase by turning all 50 state parties into individual laboratories for change. Some people may not be the ones who can make the LP palatable beyond the 2.5% of innovators. Let's find someone who can make the party palatable to the 13.5% of Americans who are early adopters. EARLY ADOPTERS social leaders, popular, educated (analagous to pragmatists and the Libertarian Reform Caucus) The early adopter stage is the one that most interests me. This is a time to work the bugs out of the party and prepare it for acceptance by the early majority of voters. Activities such as campaign management tools, etc are those of an early adopter who wishes to prepare the party for acceptance by the early majority. EARLY MAJORITY deliberate, many informal social contacts LATE MAJORITY skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status LAGGARDS neighbours and friends are main info sources, fear of debt S curve Rogers showed these innovations would spread through society in an S curve, as the early adopters select the technology first, followed by the majority, until a technology or innovation is common. I feel that the LP is transitioning as all products or ideas do. From originator to early adopters to mainstream, to late adopters to laggards. Right now the originators are giving way to the early adopters, who will prepare the party for acceptance by the mainstream. Much will be lost and gained along the way, but thIS is the nature of things. Many products have been introduced by the innovators and have been modified before the early adopters and in turn, before the mainstream adopts them. EXAMPLES OF THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE IN ACTION * Starbucks was originally supposed to be a place for the whole family with a play area and a coffee shop. But that original formulation was a money loser. Fortunately, they changed their business plan enough so that they now have thousands of upscale coffee shops, without a childrens play area. With many ventures, the 'early adopters' don't get it right on the first try. * Grunge music's Curt Cobain'', Stone Temple Pilots, etc., were originally heard in bars around Seattle. Then they got recording contracts and had to change their sound a bit to attract a broader audience. The local fans accused them of selling out. The local fans were the innovators. The teenagers who bought the albums after seeing them perform on MTV were the early adopters. The middle aged folks who buy the greatest hits album ten years later are the Early Majority. The Late Majority and the Laggards may never buy the albums. * '''The Beatles and Rolling Stones were originally English bar bands who went from innovator, to early adopter to early majority and now to late majority. The laggards still like Lawrence Welk, Classical, Rap or Country instead. These two bands have had their music played on alternative stations in the early 1960s, then rock stations in the 1970s, then their quieter songs made the easy listening stations and now you can hear them on the oldies stations. They have gone the entire circuit from innovator to early adopter to early majority to late majority. Even most laggards know the words to many of their songs. :IMO the Beatles have penetrated into the late majority much more than the more blues oriented Rolling Stones. The Beatles have more songs that lend themselves to easy listening stations. NONINITIATION OF FORCE AND THE PLEDGE ARE GOOD IDEAS, NOT A GREAT IDEA The noninitiation of force is a good idea, which can become absurd if you try to turn it into a great idea. The pledge works well enough in most situations where peaceful people are cooperating. Let's be thankful that it works in 80% of the situations and resist the impulse to wring another few extra percent out of it. Remember that the pledge is non binding. How can you enforce it without breaking it? THE PLEDGE WAS AS ORIGINALLY A LEGAL DISCLAIMER. Wasn't the pledge originally intended as a sort of legal disclaimer? If a libertarian somewhere in the world defaced an opponent's yard sign or bugged McGovern or Nixon's campaign office, or painted graffiti on someone's house, then they would automatically be acting beyond the acceptable parameters of the LP. This was to avoid lawsuits and to communicate better political practices among libertarians. Somehow along the way this legal disclaimer became elevated to a canonical status like the Ten Commandments. People crave certainty, expecially if they work with numbers for a living. Better a solid answer than a fungible one. But is this the same consistency that Emerson called 'The hobgoblin of little minds"? INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PLEDGE WHEN USED AS A GLOBAL RULE What if someone intimidates you continually and never crosses the line? What if someone or some group crosses the line, but jumps back across it before you can react? What if they have gauged your reaction time and know it better than you know it for yourself? Then you're cooked. Libertarianism offers no real-world defense against those types of tactics. In the real world, opponents (of any type) will attack where you are least able to defend. Libertarianism seems to work best in a status quo situation among relative equals who are not at war with each other. It offers no way to change a warlike, statist situation into a more libertarian one. Try some game theory on current world problems and see what results you get. Ayn Rand wrote her books before Game Theory was developed. It does not hold up well when confronted with 'modified tit-for-tat'. Even "perfect" solutions can have devastating consequences that are unforseen ahead of time. Isn't the pledge one of those 'one size fits all' solutions that we are always cautioning others about adopting? INITIATION VS. CONTINUATION OF FORCE If George Bush 'initiated' the war in Iraq, then wouldn't any subsequent President, barring cessation of hostilities, merely be 'continuing' the war, not 'initiating' it? If the war was already being fought, then a Libertarian President could simply "continue" the war, without "initiating" anything. This is like using a Mercator Projection Map at the North Pole. But we have gotten sloppy in our definititon or "initiate". It has a more specific meaning than most realize, in a bias toward pacifism. Pacifists tend to underestimate the threats facing the country, while warmongers tend to overestimate them. Sometimes limited agression is met with a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" response from pacifists. PURISTS ARE INNOVATORS, PRAGMATISTS ARE EARLY ADOPTERS. IMO a purist LP is like training wheels on a bike. You won't fall over, but you will never go fast. It gives the party a base membership of 12,000 purists who will not leave the party as long as it retains platform and pledge. That is enough to sustain a think tank, but not enough to sustain a viable political party. Purism also imposes a ceiling on the growth of the LP. We will never rise above 50,000 dues paying members with the 2005 platform. The party is faced with a classic 'grow or die' situation. The response was to streamline the national platform and hopefully grow the membership and support base. THE ZONE OF CREDIBILITY. THE LP IS NOT CREDIBLE ON MOST PLATFORM PLANKS Take any item in the LP platform. Then search through old copies of the LP News and find examples of libertarian groups who have tried to lower taxes, legalize marijuana, end the war, and so on. Take the biggest success by any libertarian group on any aspect of the platform and then double it. If a county chapter succeeds in stopping a stadium tax, or if a libertarian county official succeeds in lowering a tax by 5%, then double that accomplishment. That in my view is the outer envelope of the party's credibility. We should emphasize issues that are within this zone of credibility. The Libertarian Party could always SWITCH BACK. If making the party a bigger tent does not work out, we can always switch back. THE OTHER THREE LEGS OF THE TABLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT The platform, program, and bylaws, etc. are only one 'leg' of the LPPa table. The other legs arguably are: 1. Platform and bylaws (things on paper) 2. Fundraising and communications. 3. Better training for activists and officers 4. Stronger state and county affiliates. Candidates stand upon this table. I don't think that any knowledgable membership chair or fundraising chair would limit the donor pool by sticking with an all purist (Innovator) formulation. Unless they were trying to dominate a very specific donor pool. If more libertarians understood my last two sentences, then the party would be more successful. Once a critical number of our members have read Sales for Dummies and Fundraising for Dummies, then a tipping point will be reached. This is like a rising tide lifting all boats, or universal literacy reducing births out of wedlock. Even if someone remains a 100% purist, if they understand the other aspects of running a political party, they will be better at handling the dynamics of coalitions with non purists and so on. They will start emphasizing some parts of the platform over others, which will informally accomplish the same reforms. The occasional purist who is media savvy is not the problem. It is the vast majority of libertarians who regard the platform and pledge as lines in a computer code. Anyone savvy in communications would stop communicating the 2005 platform. They would do what I do --- communicate the parts that won't make you look naive. Once they see that fundraising is a science and an art, with rules that transcend the goals of the organization asking for funding, then they will start to wince at the platform and its Randian conceits. IT WOULD BE BETTER TO STUDY SALES AND ELECTIONS THAN TO RE-READ ATLAS SHRUGGED AGAIN. Recommended Books: * Politics the Wellstone Way, by Bill Lofy. * The Campaign Manager- by Catherine Shaw * How To Win a Local Election - by Judge Lawrence Gray * Winning Elections - by Faucheux Sales Books:(We are in the communications and sales business) * Selling for Dummies -by Tom Hopkins * Prospecting for Dummies - by Tom Hopkins * Advanced Sales Strategies - by Brian Tracy * The 25 habits of Highly Successful Salespeople - by Steve Schiffman * Power Sales Presentations - by Steve Schiffman * Robert's Rules of Order - Needed to conduct a meeting. * Fundraising For Dummies - Another excellent 'Dummies" book. JOHN GALT'S SPEECH IS A MISLEADING ANALOGY Look at Atlas Shrugged. Some computer geek named John Gault has his idea stolen. Then he got on the airwaves for 90 minutes and straightened the whole country out. How childishly naive! Rush Limbaugh has been on the air 15 hours a week for 20 years and he arguably converted 5% of the American people to his point of view. But John Gault is millions of times more persuasive than Rush. Gault is millions of times more persuasive? This is absurd. In fact, I think this leads many purist libertarians to completely misunderstand the way to use communications mediums to persuade others. Get out the 93 page rant from the back of Atlas Shrugged. Read it as though you were hearing it on C-Span, without reading the preceding 850 pages as an introduction. Read it cold. It sounds stupid without softening by the prior 850 pages. The rant does not stand on its own at first brush. Sure, some good points are made, but not as persuasively as purists think. It is actually scary when read cold, by itself. Libertarians think that this is good political communication, but it is not. No candidate has ever been elected by stating things in that manner. THE PLATFORM IS USED IN TOO MANY SITUATIONS. We may need to develop a shorter term LPPa party program, which would supplement the LPPa Party Platform. The Platform is more of a long term vision statement, while the Party Program describes what can be accomplished realistically over the next few years. The Party Program may eventually be cited more often than the Party Platform. We may need a party program for state and local issues in addition to national issues. The California LP has a party program that we could use as a starting point. We tend to over rely on platforms and web sites and not enough on logistics, flyer distribution, sales techniques and so on. Logistics is the ability to get large numbers of people to go to the same place, at the same time, to deliver the same message. In sales training, you learn how to overcome objections. But the best way to overcome an objection is to take care of it in your presentation before it becomes an objection. With enough members who have at least read a book or two on sales, they will begin to see that they can't look credible while advocating this entire platform. MERCATOR PROJECTION ANALOGY A Mercator Projection Map at the North Pole gives strange results. The Mercator projection is useful when navigating the temperate zones, but at the poles, everything becomes distorted. Greenland is not as big as South America. Antarctica is not bigger than all other continents put together. Libertarianism works fine when individuals of relatively equal power are dealing with each other under relatively peaceful situations. As war is a possibility, and as a rich nation or person deals with a poor one, the lack of peace and parity lessens the grip of liberty and libertarian solutions. THE COMPUTER CODE ANALOGY IS INAPPROPRIATE Many L/libertarians have a background in computer science. As a result, they tend to view things in black and white, rather than shades of gray. The Pledge and Platform are viewed by many as a crucial line of computer code. "if X>3, then stop." But human affairs do not operate this way. VEGAN, VEGETARIAN, HEALTHY DIET ANALOGIES Think of the analogy between vegans, vegetarians, people who don't eat red meat but eat chicken and fish, and people who are just trying to eat a little more healthily. Assuming that you eat hamburgers, which one would you rather listen to, a Vegan, a vegetarian, or someone who has substituted chicken for steak? Who would sound the least nutty to you? * Purists are like vegans. * Libertarians are like vegetarians * Small L libertarians prefer chicken to steak. * Democrats eat lard by the bucketful. Also look at the Jewish community. There are Orthodox and Reformed sects. There are also Lubavichters who are on another path. They've managed these differences for 4,000 years. PURISTS IN A QUAGMIRE? Purist Libertarianism has been in a quagmire for the past few election cycles. What is their exit strategy? Do they have a timetable for withdrawl, or are they going to stay the course until 'victory'? Another question might be: Is the Libertarian Party's basic message to the world a). Join us and become part of our secretive society which comes complete with codewords and rituals to make you feel validated? Or, b) Join us and become part of a growing network of grassroots activists who are effecting policy? Can the purists (innovators) run the party by themselves? Do they have the members to keep the party running at current levels by themselves? They may, out of necessity, have to let some of the inmates run the asylum. Does the average state party board consists of mostly purist innovators or mostly pragmatist early adopters? WAR AND THE PLEDGE Does the Libertarian Party keep a list of countries or organizations who have initiated enough force against the U.S. that retaliation is permissible under Libertarian philosophy? It seems to me that if we are going to seriously use the noninitiation of force as a guideline for foreign policy, we ought to have a list of "Red light' , "Yellow light' and "Green light" countries. :Green light countries have already committed acts of force on the U.S. and we can attack them tomorrow without getting tons of emails about it. :Yellow light countries haven't quite set off the trip wire yet, but we are watching them very closely. :Red light countries have never committed acts of violence toward the U. S. or its citizens, so we can't justify bombing them into the stone age. If we are not separating the other nations of the earth into these categories, then the noninitiation of force is just a rhetorical device. This logic does not necessarily have to be used as a pacifist construct. It could be used as a tripwire for massive retaliation by the mightiest military on earth. It can be read both ways. Don't blame me, I didn't write it. Don't the troops themselves deserve to know which countries are on the red, yellow and green lists when they enlist? THE MINUTEMEN of 1775 vs. 2006 The 2006 Minutemen on the US-Mexican border represent what is best in America. They are private citizen volunteers who are erecting fences of private property to keep illegals out. They are reporting acts of trespass to the border patrol. They make David Koresh look like a crazed religious schizophrenic nutball by comparison. They make Randy Weaver look like a racist kook (although he may have been right about Specter). Didn't the LP stick up for Weaver and Koresh? Who has more character? The Minutemen, Weaver, Koresh, (or Specter, for that matter)? PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PURIST/INNOVATORS When we fail at the ballot box, it not only keeps unbelievers away, but the fact that we fail reinforces the notion that 'we are doing things the pure, right way'. This is hogwash. We are the flat earth society. I'm not worried about purists who understand the other aspects of running a successful political party. The biggest problem is that party members don't know much about politics. But the information is out there in every book store. As a non-practicing Catholic, I am used to sticking up for my Church while not necessarily following all of its rules. Purists formed the party as a cocoon to shield themselves from cognitive dissonance. They need to validate their skill sets, psychological tendencies, and so on. Better to be a freedom fighter who never leaves his keyboard than a nobody any day. The National Libertarian Party is doing a lot of things under the radar to pave the way for the early adopters. * Zero dues will create 50 laboratories at the state level. No one group can control 50 different entities easily. Eventually many of the 50 state parties will become de facto nonpurist parties. * The Campaign Management online school will educate the members in the nuts and bolts of running an actual political party, regardless of ideology. * Most articles in the LP News call for a softening of the Purist position, one way or the other. ** Daniel Cloud has to walk a fine line between purists and pragmatists, but he seems to be a pragmatist at heart. What motivates the purists? Many need to be king of the intellectual anthill. As long as they can get together with a half dozen of their compatriots once a month and go to the occasional convention where they are told that they are great, then they feel enough validation to go on living. Fine, but how does that help the country? In Pennsylvania, we are short of candidates and we would run anyone who is 'plausibly libertarian', provided they ran a decent campaign. If the USA is at say, 20/20 on any Libertarian quiz you can name, then someone who scores a 50/50 may actually be an ally, not a heretic. My the Keystone Quiz is easier to score highly on than the Nolan Quiz. We are looking for Statewide Libertarians, not National Libertarians. I could have made it 100 questions long, so that no one could score a 100%. Better to have false positives than false negatives. Did you ever see Mel Gibson's "The Patriot?" Did you notice that every soldier under his command had a completely different personality and motivation for fighting the British? But their guns were pointed in the same direction at the critical time. That is all that matters. If every state had its version of Pa's Keystone Quiz then the floodgates will be open to more members. The states do not decide as many big issues as the federal government does. So the 50 state parties write statewide quizzes that deal with statewide issues, which are easier to imagine being implemented. Take any issue in the LP Platform. Then look through the LP News and find the biggest libertarian advance in that area. That is our zone of believability. If we claim to want to eliminate taxation, but the biggest L advance in that area is getting a stadium tax repealed, then that is within our zone of credibility. As Montini said, if you claim to eliminate taxes, you sound like Ed McMahon saying that you may have won $10 million. Better to sell them on a $300 per person tax cut, rather than a multibillion dollar one. This is more believable. Also, I like philosophy a lot and I tend to be ideological, but Nietzsche pretty much deconstructed that as an impartial way of looking at things in 'The Prejudices of Philosophers'. Look it up some time. Which works better for you as a validation tool? A party that regards you as a noble, principled, enlightened individual, or one that considers you less highly? How many philosophies are really available to most purists? Philosophies manifest themselves much like the elements on the Periodic Chart. There are a finite number of combinations that hang together. Out of those, a pacifist is either a Fellow Traveler/ Useful Idiot, or a Libertarian. It is in some purists' best interests that most LP members do NOT understand how to communicate effectively. It is in some purists' best interests that few members know how to fundraise, write an effective campaign brochure, and so on. Once they figure these things out, they won't need purism as a safety blanket or a set of training wheels. A party started by insurance agents rather than computer programmers would have a different culture from the beginning. IMO many people play the purist card because they want to tap an exclusive donor pool. Had they moderated their views, the purist money pool would not belong to them, and they would have to compete for donations and support with the Newt Gingriches of the world who are better at it than they are. They wanted to dominate a minor league by telling people what they wanted to hear. NATIONAL, STATEWIDE AND MUNICIPAL LIBERTARIANISM. The platform defines Libertarianism in terms of national politics. Perhaps the definition is more plastic at the state, county and municipal levels? At these levels, the issues decided are less critical and more within the zone of credibility for the party. You could also argue that there is a difference between National Libertarianism, Statewide Libertarianism and finally, Municipal Libertarianism. The Pledge is basically only for national libertarianism. Many National purists might accept more pragmatism on the state and local levels because smaller issues are decided there. At the state and local levels, you could come up with a 'world's smallest political quiz like theone of mine that I suggested for the LPPa.. It's a rip off of the Nolan Quiz only it is much easier to answer YES to the questions. This expands the number of potential 'statewide libertarians'. These are people that will join the state party but perhaps not the national party. Possibly Zero Dues was a way to force these things to happen. Can you imagine being in the main office of the LP, having to placate purists while being unable to reach out to the millions of 'regulation americans' out there? They are frustrated from working with one hand tied behind their backs. Since National no longer collects dues, it is up to the state parties to fend for themselves. Soon they will see that the platform, etc is an albatross around their necks. It is like training wheels on a bike. It locks in a dedicated group of 'purists' and scares others away. Many people actually like it this way. But without any financial help from national, the local parties will have to expand their definition of libertarian activist to include more people. Otherwise they will not have enough membership dues to accomplish anything. My best guess for the future would be this. The LP has gone to zero dues. This will make the state affiliates less dependent both financially and philosophically on National. I predict that over the next few years the LP in say, Alabama will be much different than the LP in say, Connecticut. The state parties will become 'laboratories' that share info with each other. Some practices will be phased out and others will take their place. THE KEYSTONE QUIZ AS AN EXAMPLE OF STATEWIDE LIBERTARIANISM. The issues aren't as big, but they are within the expectations that early adopters would have for a minor party. Saying that we will cut the size of government by 50% then break for lunch is a crowd-pleasing remark with the innovators, but the Early Adopters will view those claims with skepticism. They would rather see the party work on issues more in line with the current size and capabilities of the party. Every state could have its own version of the Keystone quiz. Then there will be 50 different versions of statewide libertarianism. Zero dues will create 50 different laboratories. (even with the new sustaining member category at National). The new service ageement between Natilonal and the states will leave the states more independent financially from National. With financial independence comes ideological independence. THE KEYSTONE QUIZ How do you rate on the libertarian Candidates' Survey? Personal- libertarian Candidates' Survey. 1. The military draft shall not be reinstituted in Pa. 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the internet. 3. Same sex couples shall have the same rights regarding contracts, adoption, inheritance and visitation as married couples presently enjoy. 4. Medical marijuana shall be a valid treatment offered for appropriate medical conditions by physicians licensed in Pa. 5. The right of Pennsylvanians to own firearms in defense of self and state shall not be questioned. - - - - Economic- libertarian Candidates' Survey. 1. Pa. Business and farms should operate without state subsidies, and excessive regulations on Pa. businesses should be repealed. 2. The Pa. Turnpike Commission, Milk Marketing Board and State Liquor Control Boards shall be phased out as quickly as possible. 3. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them in Pa.. 4. Gov Ed Rendell's 33% state tax increase should be repealed. 5. Pa. landowners shall be free from eminent domain land grabs where their private property is transferred by the courts to another private entity. THE PLATFORM AND PLEDGE AREN'T OUR BIGGEST PROBLEMS. OTHER PROBLEMS WITHIN THE PARTY We tend to treat fundraising as an afterthought. Burnout is prevalent. We need ways to spread out the work load. This will take a combination of better time management and better recruiting and mentoring. At the individual level, members must become better versed in the mechanics of campaigns. At the county level, management needs to be improved and time lines need to be implemented. This will help us to prioritize and to shorten the decision cycle when deciding to undertake a project. Too often, the time needed to make a decision at either the state or county level is too long. Procrastination sets in and things are decided hastily, or not at all. Opportunities pass us by due to a lack of advanced planning. We still re-invent the wheel too often. We tend to over rely on platforms and web sites and not enough on logistics, flyer distribution, sales techniques and so on. Logistics is the ability to get large numbers of people to go to the same place, at the same time, to deliver the same message. Whether they show up on the Capitol steps in Harrisburg on a Tuesday afternoon, or whether they go to their computers to write an email to selected state representatives, it is all part of logistics. We have improved greatly in this area, but at times we let this lapse. Factionalism has led many Libertarians to sit on the sidelines. Perhaps they will become active in the LPPa again, or at least fight for libertarian ideas at the local level or in Libertarian leaning organizations. We have a bias toward computer -based solutions to all problems. The old adage, "If all you have is a hammer, the world becomes a nail" comes to mind. Posting flyers on bulletin boards would probably reach more people, yet few people post them. We send emails when calling on the phone would cement a relationship for good. Without becoming Luddites, we should consider computers as one of many components in the mix. Links Also See * Libertarians-statement-Sullivan from July, 2006 category:framework THE BIGGER PICTURE The Libertarian Movement needs to make inroads into PALM (politics, academia, law and the media). We can make inroads into Politics by fulfilling our mission statement. We can make inroads into Academia by starting college libertarian clubs and getting students to intern with the LPPa for college credit. As for law, we can strengthen our Legal Action Committee. As for media, PCN TV has welcomed us to produce public access Libertarian programs at its studios. At times, we are our own worst enemies. We are at times like the proverbial man who lost his car keys in a dark alley, but looks for them under the street light because the light is better there. Our general reluctance to consider improving the party's operations in areas not involving bylaws, pledges, principle, and so forth is self-limiting to say the least. BCRA laws affect donors, candidates, campaign committees, and the LPPa itself differently. We need to understand campaign laws from all of these points of view. Someone may be in compliance as a donor, but not in compliance as a candidate or board member. Many LPPa activists wear many hats, so we need to know the ins and outs better than we do now. We also need a time line to keep track of BCRA time restrictions of Federal Election Activity as well as the petitioning and filing deadlines for our candidates. category:Planks_from_elsewhere